On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 04:35:45PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 05:11:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 03:25:17PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: ... > > > +#include <linux/device/faux.h> > > > > I would rather think that this goes after generic inclusions... > > > > > +#include <linux/err.h> > > > +#include <linux/init.h> > > > +#include <linux/slab.h> > > > +#include <linux/string.h> > > > > ...somewhere here. > > > > But looking into organisation of device.h and device/*.h, > > I would rather think of the linux/faux_device.h. > > It can go anywhere, there is no need to sort things :) It's not about sorting, it's about grouping from more generic to less generic. > > > +#include "base.h" > > > > I don't remember by heart what it does include, I would go with IWYU principle > > and list above all what we use. > > > > container_of.h > > device.h > > export.h > > printk.h > > types.h > > That's not what the driver core ever did, so no need to worry about it, > thanks. But it doesn't mean that driver code does its best. No big worries, of course. ... > > > + return (strcmp(faux_obj->name, drv->name) == 0); > > > > Outer parentheses are not needed. > > Makes me feel good as it is an assignment test, and that's what > platform.c has for the past few decades. Sure, it also can be written as return !strcmp(faux_obj->name, drv->name); that makes the same without explicit comparing to 0. But it's matter of taste. ... > > > +/** > > > + * __faux_device_create - create and register a faux device and driver > > > + * @name: name of the device and driver we are adding > > > + * @faux_ops: struct faux_driver_ops that the new device will call back into, can be NULL > > > + * @owner: module owner of the device/driver > > > + * > > > + * Create a new faux device and driver, both with the same name, and register > > > + * them in the driver core properly. The probe() callback of @faux_ops will be > > > + * called with the new device that is created for the caller to do something > > > + * with. > > > > The kernel-doc will complain on missing Return: section. > > Is that new? Does that mean platform.c has lots of complaints in it as > well? What does platform_find_device_by_driver() give you for a > documentation issue? > > And as I didn't hook this up to the kernel documentation build yet, it > shouldn't produce any warnings anywhere :) I would rather say it's old. Run kernel-doc -Wall -none -v ...your file... and find the warning. During the kernel builds this is moved to extra warnings. > > > + */ ... > > > + faux_obj = kzalloc(sizeof(*faux_obj) + strlen(name) + 1, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > Potential overflow. To avoid one may use struct_size() from overflow.h. > > Users should not be providing the string here. Again, this comes from > platform.c. I'm not sure I follow. The name parameter is not limited anyhow, so one may provide non-terminated string and strlen() will return an arbitrary number. Potentially this can lead to big numbers and become an overflow when gets to a parameter for kmalloc(). This most likely never happen in real life, but still the overflow is possible. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
